Standing Committee E

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy) rose—

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Do you object to jackets being removed?

Joe Benton: No objection. Ladies may also remove their jackets, if they wish to do so.
 Motion made, and Question proposed, 
That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill (Lords) the Standing Committee do meet (in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 25th February at five minutes to Nine o'clock) on Tuesdays and Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock; 
 (2) six sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee; 
 (3) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown; 
 (4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table; 
 (5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded. 
TABLE  Sitting Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings   1st  Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 17, Clause 3, Clauses 5 to 10  —   2nd  Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 17, Clause 3, Clauses 5 to 10 (so far as not previously concluded)  5.00 p.m.  3rd  Clause 18, Clauses 20 to 22, Clauses 11 to 16  —   4th  Clause 18, Clauses 20 to 22, Clauses 11 to 16 (so far as not previously concluded  5.00 p.m.   5th  Clause 19, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 23, Schedule 1, Clause 4, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 36, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 and 40, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill  —   6th  Clause 19, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 23, Schedule 1, Clause 4, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 36, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 and 40, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded)—[Jane Kennedy.]  5.00 p.m. 
 Clause 19, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 23, Schedule 1, Clause 4, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 36, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 and 40, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded)—[Jane Kennedy.]

John Taylor: The fact that you are chairing the Committee is a matter of satisfaction,
 Mr. Benton. During our proceedings I wish to review some of the points with which the official Opposition want to take issue. The Bill is difficult, and to some extent it could be argued that it is unnecessary. I draw attention to the Second Reading debate, especially the speech of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said:
''Implementation of Patten was achieved in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.''
 He went on to say: 
''Indeed, in many respects, that Act was Patten plus, with knobs on''
 and that he considered that to be a discharge of 
''Patten lock, stock and barrel.''
 The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the strictures and disciplines that could be placed on the police, in particular on the Chief Constable, during inquiries and investigations: 
''A police service that is constantly at risk of being inquired into and investigated, with its policies and actions questioned and challenged, its judgments called into question, and its practices constantly put under a microscope by the accountability bodies—and, for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, there is more than one body—cannot easily get on with the job of policing.''
 That is a matter of serious concern. If the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 implemented Patten, why are we here today? Dare I ask if further concessions are to be made in the republican interest? Are they the result of Weston Park? If Weston Park moved the goalposts—to use that idiom—what was there in it for the Unionists? The right hon. Gentleman also said: 
''I want to go back to my remarks on the constant, unrelenting pressure on the police, with their every move, judgment and action scrutinised, brought out into the open, put into a goldfish bowl, and debated. My fear—and I would put it no more strongly than this—is that the provisions of the new Bill will tilt further in that direction, creating risk in the evolution of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
A balance must be struck between constantly reviewing the police and allowing them to get on with their job''.
 I wholly concur with that sentiment. 
 The number of members on the Northern Ireland Policing Board is currently set at 19. How many of those 19 are needed to call for reports? The right hon. Member for Hartlepool also said: 
''I recall that there was huge pressure to agree to the paltry figure of eight in the original Bill''.—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 681–84.]

Joe Benton: Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the programme motion. I am not sure where his remarks are leading us.

John Taylor: I am most grateful for your direction, Mr. Benton. The context in which my remarks are cast is that I hope that, given the programme motion and the time available, important issues can be considered. I want to outline at an early stage in Committee what I consider to be the important issues in the Bill, so that we can make a judgment about a time envelope for our debate that would adequately accommodate them.

Joe Benton: Order. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said and I am prepared to allow the
 debate to go on a little longer, but may I remind him that we are addressing the programme motion?

John Taylor: In that case, Mr. Benton, I intend to speak at a more economical length. Within the time frame that we are currently discussing, I am anxious that in the Bill, departing as it does from the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000—which the right hon. Member for Hartlepool described as ''Patten with knobs on''—we are departing from the balance between the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the board, which many of us thought had been set at a correct equilibrium in the 2000 Act. The Bill gives more power to the board and, to some extent, less to the Chief Constable, who we think should have a free hand in policy matters.
 I have been twice corrected by you, Mr. Benton, and that affects my demeanour and my approach to such matters so early in the preliminary debate. I am prepared to draw my remarks to a conclusion, having advised the Committee that some things should be improved—as they were, to some degree, in another place—and also that some things are, arguably, unnecessary. The 2000 Act is the correct basis for procedure. We question why it is necessary to have another piece of legislation now.

Lembit Öpik: I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton, and I shall limit myself to the programme motion. I note that there are intended to be six sittings on the Bill, and it seems to me that that should be enough time to go through the amendments and the clauses before us. There was a comprehensive Second Reading debate, and I made my views known at that time.
 By way of apology, I might mention that although we are having six sittings on this Bill, the Standing Committee on the Hunting Bill has now had 30 sittings. Obviously, there are those who feel that that Bill is five times more important than policing in Northern Ireland. I apologise in advance, because the unexpected extra sittings of that Committee, which are taking place even as I speak, will draw me away from this Committee. I hope that Committee members will be patient with me if I am absent, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) will be able to take on some of the responsibilities. 
 The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) raised some general issues with regard to the Bill, and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) referred to those issues on Second Reading. On balance, the Liberal Democrats feel that the Bill is appropriate, although we take issue with specific points that we will make known as the Committee proceeds.

David Trimble: I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Benton. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, particularly as it is several years since I had the pleasure of sitting on a Standing Committee. I look forward also to seeing how Committees operate under the new regime, but I approach the new regime—it is new to me, although other Committee members have experience of it—with a certain amount of trepidation. I recall the days when
 there were comparatively few timetables—they used to be called guillotines—and that they were a sign of dishonour on the part of the Government who introduced them. Now we have guillotines for everything, but they are called timetables. That is perhaps a form of rebranding, through which it is hoped that the dishonour that ought to be attached to them will be escaped.
 I shall make two comments on the Committee programme. First, I notice that it is proposed that we sit next Tuesday morning. I am inclined to welcome that, because it will limit any temptation that I might have to linger on Monday evening for whatever discussions may be taking place. In order to attend the Committee next Tuesday morning I shall, of course, have to quit Belfast by late afternoon on Monday. That will fit quite nicely with my likely intentions on that day. However, Mr. Benton, you will understand if I do not elaborate further on that matter. 
 The second and perhaps more serious matter is that I have doubts about the programme. I have looked at the arrangements regarding the number of clauses per sitting and the timetabling of amendments, and I wait with interest to see whether there are days on which we do not take the full amount of time and others on which debate is cut off. One of the disadvantages of any sort of programme is that it lacks flexibility. I shall follow this matter with interest. I remember when discussions would take place between the Whips, who were usually able to ensure that all matters were discussed and that time was used efficiently. I suspect that the programme might be inefficient. 
 I also wish to place on record my complete opposition to and dislike of the present hours. I think that they are ridiculous and that they deprive the House of Commons of the ability to consider matters properly. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has already said that the present hours are having a serious, negative effect on his activities. This situation is not in the interest of the House and it is not in the interest of the public. I know that you cannot do anything about it, Mr. Benton, but I wish to put on record my view that the new hours are utterly foolish, that they are seriously affecting the operation of the House and that they are making life inconvenient for hon. Members. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.'']

David Wilshire: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. We have heard some fascinating contributions, especially from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I would like to agree, at length, with the right hon. Gentleman on the stupidity of the present hours, but I suspect that you would get fidgety rather quickly. I simply put on the record that I agree with every word that he said.

Lembit Öpik: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the purpose of debating programme motions is undermined by all of us being double or triple booked during the middle of the day? That unquestionably harms our ability to scrutinise legislation proposed by the Government.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I was coming to that point. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that he half hopes that the Committee will meet next Tuesday so that he is not asked to agree to more surrenders to the IRA. He should book his flight now, because the Committee will sit on that day. We will help him resist all temptations and blandishments to get involved in another sell-out, so he is safe in that respect.
 The right hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to see how the new regime operates. He is in for a dreadful shock; he will find some of it fairly unpalatable. First, he will find that the rebranding of that draconian measure, the guillotine, is nothing more than window-dressing to make the unacceptable seem trendy. As he says, the timetabling of Bills is intended to improve efficiency, but the efficiency of a dictatorial Government in railroading whatever they want through Parliament, irrespective of the views of right hon. and hon. Members, and efficiency in the attempt to become a dictatorship, has nothing to do with parliamentary democracy. The right hon. Gentleman will witness that, and will realise that the principle of guillotining everything has nothing to do with democracy, scrutiny or debate. 
 I speak from experience. A few weeks ago, I was on a Committee considering a 90-clause Bill, and the amount of time that the Government decided was necessary enabled us to consider fewer than 30 of the 90 clauses, and none of the schedules. That is what is meant by efficiency when it comes to guillotines. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) if he wants me to do so.

Ross Cranston: If the hon. Gentleman did not engage in time-wasting, he could get on with discussing the Bill.

David Wilshire: If I were not speaking to the business of the Committee, you would have stopped me by now, Mr. Benton. Therefore, in the view of the Chairman, I am not wasting time; I am addressing an issue. It is typical of Back-Bench Labour Members to want to stifle any criticism of the Government's wish to trample over democracy, and that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to achieve.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who have tried hard to keep up with the intensive, persistent efforts of the Government to force through huge amounts of legislation regarding Northern Ireland in a short time have had to put up with debates on statutory instruments where we have had to say yes or no to entire Bills after a half-hour debate? Perhaps we should discuss reprogramming those debates to enable us, first, to attend all the meetings, instead of them being held all at the same time, and, secondly, to make amendments, rather than simply giving a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

David Wilshire: That is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and Her Majesty's Opposition have done their level best to deal with the legislation that was part way through the Assembly when it was
 suspended. We once protested that we thought that the situation was in some ways undemocratic, but we fully accepted the undertaking that half-finished matters would be finished as quickly as possible. When necessary, we have co-operated with the Liberal Democrats in that process, having served notice that anything new that is brought forward must be subjected to proper scrutiny.
 I can only assume that certain Labour Members do not even want us to debate the programme motion. Standing Orders make it clear that, for half an hour at the beginning of consideration of a Bill in Committee, it is possible to debate an attempt to trample on democracy, and I make no apologies for doing so. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North thinks that I am time-wasting, but he has heard nothing yet. He should wait until we start filibustering.

Paul Goodman: Might I carefully suggest that my hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to Back-Bench Labour Members? Surely, as the Committee proceeds, they will be distinguished by their frequent comments and contributions to debate.

David Wilshire: Heaven forfend that I—a reasonable person who has never been known to waste time—be unfair. I look forward to hearing interventions made by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North and I promise that when he makes speeches, I shall accuse him of nothing other than addressing the Bill. However, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann is heading for a serious shock about the general principle of guillotining and he will not enjoy what he finds.
 The matter does not end there because not only do we have a limit of six sittings, but there are knives at two points during our consideration. I made it clear in the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday that I have no objections to the order in which the Bill will be considered because there are good, sensible reasons why we should not consider the clauses in numerical order from clause 1. My colleagues and I do not disagree with that. However, we disagree with being told how long we should consider each bit. I agree with the Government saying, ''This is a sensible order in which to consider the Bill'', but I disagree with them saying, ''You will only be allowed one, two or three sittings because that is the pace at which we wish to go.'' That should not happen and I shall ask the Committee to divide on the motion because I want to register yet again that that is not the way in which we should do things. 
 Although we object to the guillotine, the Government will have their way. Within that straitjacket, it is sensible that we should see how things go. In the previous Committee on which I served, it became blindingly obvious during the first sitting that the guillotine arrangements were wrong and that they should be changed. If they had not been there in the first place, we would have got along much better and would not have had to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee. I say now to my opposite number, the Government Whip, who cannot answer back, that if it is necessary to talk 
 about moving the knives, I shall be happy to join any discussion on behalf of the official Opposition. 
 The knives at 5 o'clock might be convenient for those who believe that the new hours are good and want to push off just after 5 o'clock for a night on the town. If that is what Back Benchers are all about, the programme motion achieves that aim admirably. However, the motion does not make for sensible, structured debate because as that unwinds, it may become clear that a subject should be talked about for longer than the Government thought. A longer debate might be constructive and helpful for the Government. We should not always have to look at the clock saying, ''Good heavens, 5 o'clock is nearly here and we must curtail what we want to say about clause x or y because we must reach clauses 8 and 9, which are very important.'' Whatever we might want to say today ahead of clauses 8 and 9, we shall be constrained because those clauses are where the meat of our first two sittings lies. 
 Some crazy things could happen because we are worried about that. We might say that we shall not discuss fully clauses ahead of clauses 8 and 9 but find that there is not as much to say as we thought about those clauses. We could arrive at the end of our consideration before 5 o'clock because of an artificial attempt to stifle democracy within an overall attempt to trample over democracy. 
 In normal circumstances, it would be argued that we do not have sufficient time to consider the Bill—the knives are wrong. However, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann touched on what he and others will be doing next week. I have heard it advanced that it would be in the best interests of certain people to ensure that the Bill gets out of Committee this week—to rush it in fewer than six sittings. That would mean that there would be no temptation for the Government to make further concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA by stuffing new clauses into the Bill next week. For the avoidance of doubt, may I make it crystal clear that I hope that the Minister will reassure us about whatever next week's negotiations may bring? I have my views about that but this is not the occasion to go down that route because you, Mr. Benton, will say that that has nothing to do with the Bill. Will the hon. Lady reassure us that if the negotiations require any changes to either the status quo of policing in Northern Ireland or additional concessions to be made in the Bill to Sinn Fein-IRA, they will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny? In other words, they should be first debated on the Floor of the House, meaning that every hon. Member would be entitled to attend.

Seamus Mallon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Government produce, or introduce, matters on Report by way of amendments, he would apply what he is saying to that? If that is the case, and the guillotine is imposed, is it not a fact that whatever discussion and deliberation takes place in Committee, the matter can be dealt with on Report in that arbitrary fashion—as it was previously, hence our presence here today?

David Wilshire: I was coming to that very point. If the Government deem any further measures necessary to appease Sinn Fein-IRA, one could argue, on a
 technicality, that it was better to deal with them on Report than in Committee. It is wrong to do that on both counts, but if anything major is to be brought forward as an addition to the Bill, to limit the debate to the few members of this Committee would be an abuse of democracy.
 I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will not use the Committee to deal with specific measures that started in another place and have been fully discussed there as a package, and are now here as a package. That is what I am focusing on. The hon. Gentleman, fairly, asks me what would I say if something were brought in on Report? With the technical exception that on Report, at least all Members of Parliament are entitled to speak, and that is a plus—

Seamus Mallon: That was not the case. People were not allowed to speak. Some of the matters that were brought up were subject to the guillotine, so there was no discussion whatever.

David Wilshire: That is absolutely right. I am simply making the technical point that if there were not a guillotine, more people could contribute—but there is a guillotine here, too. The hon. Gentleman can object to what will happen on Report, as I do, but it is no easier for people to discuss new matters seriously within a six-sitting guillotined Committee. New clauses would be tagged on to one of the sections, and the same principles would apply here as apply on the Floor of the House.
 I am simply making the technical point to the hon. Gentleman that theoretically, more people could be involved on Report, but I at one with him in saying that such things should not be done here—and they should not be done on Report, either. If there are negotiations next week, and if anything comes out of them that requires legislation, that should be dealt with in the proper way. It should be brought before both Houses of Parliament for Second Reading debates, for full scrutiny and consideration. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that matter. 
 The general principle of timetabling is wrong. The introduction of knives is wrong. If the Government are tempted to introduce anything other than what has been debated in another place, that too would be wrong.

Seamus Mallon: I shall say a few words on the programme motion. I welcome the early start: dull would he or she be of soul who did not enjoy trudging over Westminster bridge at 7.30 in the morning to sit in Committee on a policing Bill. I believe that that is the most apt time of the day for indulging in such activities.
 I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull that this is an unnecessary Bill. Had the Government done what they had been asked when discussing the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, it would not be necessary. The record shows that every change included in the Bill was subject to amendment in Committee; each one was argued against and defeated by the Government. It is interesting now to read the Government's explanatory notes to the Bill— 
 It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to paragraph (9) of Sessional Order C, relating to Programming Sub-Committees. 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Resolved, 
That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill (Lords) the Standing Committee do meet (in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 25th February at five minutes to Nine o'clock) on Tuesdays and Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock; 
 (2) Six sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee; 
 (3) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown; 
 (4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table; 
 (5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded. 
 TABLE 
 Sitting Proceedings 
 Time for conclusion of proceedings 
 1st 
 Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 17, Clause 3, Clauses 5 to 10 
 — 
 2nd 
 Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 17, Clause 3, Clauses 5 to 10 (so far as not previously concluded) 
 5.00 p.m. 
 3rd 
 Clause 18, Clauses 20 to 22, Clauses 11 to 16 
 — 
 4th 
 Clause 18, Clauses 20 to 22, Clauses 11 to 16 (so far as not previously concluded 
 5.00 p.m. 
 5th 
 Clause 19, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 23, Schedule 1, Clause 4, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 36, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 and 40, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill 
 — 
 6th 
 Clause 19, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clause 23, Schedule 1, Clause 4, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 36, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 and 40, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) 
 5.00 p.m.

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolution are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.Clause 1 Consultation with Board

Clause 1 - Consultation with Board

John Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in
clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 52, in
clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 9.
 No. 5, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from 'Board' to 'the' in line 9 and insert 'on'.
 No. 1, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out 'with a view to obtaining' and insert 'and obtain'.
 No. 3, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert 
 'with a view to obtaining the support of'.
 No. 53, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 12, after 'Constable', insert 
 'with a view to obtaining his agreement to the proposed objectives or revision'.
 No. 4, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 12, after 'Constable', insert— 
 '(aa) the First Minister;'.
 No. 54, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
 No. 55, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 19.
 No. 6, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out 
 'with a view to obtaining' 
 and insert 'and obtain'.
 No. 7, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 4, after 'Constable', insert— 
 '(aa) the First Minister;'.
 No. 9, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end add—
'(4) In subsection (3)(a) after ''Constable'', insert ''the First Minister''.'.
 No. 21, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert 
 'and after ''State'', insert ''the First Minister''.'.

John Taylor: I shall speak in particular to the amendments that I tabled. The clause would amend sections 24 and 27 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Currently, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Chief Constable and anyone else the Secretary of State deems appropriate before determining or revising
 long-term policing objectives and codes of practice on the exercise and functions of the board or the Chief Constable.
 Committee members may have heard me say on other occasions that in Northern Ireland legislation I look for a particular virtue, which is that, as far as possible, the law of the Province should be convergent with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, it should be in line with the law in England and Wales. It is a state of grace for the law to be convergent in the various regions of our country, because those in our society live under a special discipline, which is that the citizen is deemed to know the law. That follows on from a Roman antecedent, whereby ignorance of the law is no excuse for transgressing. It is seemly for the law to be convergent so that the citizen has the best chance of knowing the law and observing it. 
 It has been the practice in the jurisdiction of England and Wales—I cannot speak with authority about Scotland, but I suspect that the arrangements there are similar—that there is an equilibrium and a fine balance in what has been called the tripartite arrangement between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board; in England and Wales the arrangement is between the Home Secretary, chief constables and police authorities. I have no quibble about the police authority—in Northern Ireland, that is the Policing Board. I am interested in the concept of the balance between the Secretary of State, the relevant chief constable and the appropriate police authority. That balance has been carefully sculpted and nurtured over the years. It has worked well and it has been seen to work well. 
 The clause shifts the balance in that tripartite equilibrium and I am concerned about it because it does no good. It is stipulated that the 
''Secretary of State must consult the board with''
 —I quote with emphasis— 
''a view to reaching agreement''
. 
 The Secretary of State must still consult the Chief Constable and anyone else, but with the statutory obligation to reach agreement. In his consultation with the board the Chief Constable is fettered, under a condition and a stipulation and almost under a pre-judgment, to go into such a discussion with a view to reaching agreement. The effect of the provision is—we are sure of our ground—to enhance the status of the board vis-à-vis the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable goes to the board not as an equal and not even possessed completely and roundly of his own authority; he must go to the board as a supplicant. This we do not like. The Chief Constable is being fettered in possibly the most difficult, sensitive and dangerous policing jurisdiction in this kingdom and he must go to the board as a supplicant. That is not the traditional freedom that we have known for a Chief Constable, which consists of unfettered authority in determining policy objectives. Surely, he must consult, but now he must consult with a view to reaching agreement. 
 At the risk of repeating myself, we are on the threshold of making the Chief Constable a supplicant to a board; but what kind of a board is it? It is certain that it will contain politicians. Are we to make the Chief Constable a supplicant to politicians? That is a rather dangerous road. We believe that the provision would downgrade the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable before the board. We were more content with the traditional tripartite agreement. Indeed, we were well content with the 2000 Act. Indeed, we were well content with the 2000 Act. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, on Second Reading of the Bill that became that Act, said that he thought that it was Patten to the full, Patten to the utterance and Patten—in the vernacular—with knobs on. Why are we revisiting the matter in this way, and why do we risk disturbing the tripartite balance?

David Wilshire: The amendments tabled only in my name form two sub-groups. One convenient sub-group could be amendments Nos. 5, 1, 3 and 6, which relate to a train of thought that I shall explain in a moment. The other sub-group is amendments Nos. 4 and 7 to clause 1, amendment No. 9 to clause 2 and amendment No. 21 to clause 17. They all raise a virtually identical point, and I imagine that that is why the Clerks, in their wisdom, grouped them together.
 The general points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull were correct and I shall not rehearse them again. However, it would be wrong to alter fundamentally the Chief Constable's status. We shall consider that in detail in due course. The way in which consultation with the board is structured is woolly minded. It seems that the Bill is not sure what it wants to say. It either says that there will be a process of asking people what they think and discussing that, although the power would lie with the person who starts the consultation, or that certain people will be required to agree to something. Both courses of action are technically acceptable and a logical way of doing business. 
 However, it is not sensible that proposed new subsection (2) in clause 1(1) says 
''with a view to obtaining its agreement''.
 What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that one must have the board's agreement, that one must try to get its agreement or that agreement does not matter? It is a most peculiar phrase. 
 Amendment No. 5 would get the Government out of the mess into which they have got themselves and might appeal to them. They might mean that we shall consult on something. If my amendment were accepted, the provision would read ''shall consult the Board'' on 
''the proposed objectives or revision.''
 Fine. I would have no quarrel with that; let us talk about it. If that is what the Government mean, that is what the Bill should say. 
 If the Government mean that the other sensible thing should happen, amendment No. 1 is suitable. I appreciate that it is a total contradiction of amendment No. 5, but I do not mind which amendment the Government choose, as long as they 
 choose one. Amendment No. 1 would mean that the Secretary of State should consult the board and obtain its agreement. Which is it to be: to consult on, or to obtain agreement? The phrase 
''with a view to obtaining its agreement''
 raises the question of what would happen if agreement were not reached. We would be at loggerheads, and we might need another Bill or to debate the matter all over again in order to clarify what the Government intend. I never know on such occasions why I try to be so helpful to a Government who I so detest, but I tabled the amendments in the spirit of saying, ''You made a mess of this, and here is a helpful suggestion from a kind Opposition Member to get you out of it.''

Jane Kennedy: It is appreciated.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister for her appreciation. Perhaps I have got it wrong if I am being appreciated this early in the proceedings.
 Amendment No. 3 would rewrite subsection (2A)— 
''Before determining or revising any objectives under this section, the Secretary of State shall also consult''—
 by adding the words 
''with a view to obtaining the support of''.
 That is another way of proceeding if the first two amendments do not appeal and the Government do not want to roll over and accept one or the other. 
 Amendment No. 6 would mean that the Secretary of State shall consult the board and obtain its agreement rather than consulting the board 
''with a view to obtaining its agreement''.
 I would be grateful to hear the Minister's response on which of those she is going to accept. I hope she is not going to try to persuade us that the original wording is the ideal one. There are occasions when parliamentary draftsmen are not perfect, and this is one of those occasions when we can help them. 
 I am glad that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has returned. Amendments Nos. 4,7,9 and 21 relate to various places in the Bill where there is a list of people who shall be consulted or consulted to obtain the agreement of. I may have missed one or two of these lists, but my argument is the same whenever one appears. The Bill says that there should be consultation with 
''(a) the Chief Constable; and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.''
 I do not know why it is worth including a specific list of people who may be consulted, if that is followed by a catch-all phrase that allows anybody to be consulted. Why not just say, ''Consult anybody''? I am always suspicious of giving Secretaries of State powers to do what they please, regardless of the nature of the Government of the day. They should do what Parliament says. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull made a valid point: the Chief Constable is being made subservient to politicians. That is what is happening in this process. If the Government have determined to 
 make the Chief Constable subservient to politicians—something to which I object—the principal politician should be listed alongside the Chief Constable. In this instance that would be the First Minister, who speaks for the majority of people of Northern Ireland. 
 If the Chief Constable is to be made subservient, that should be admitted to and done openly; there should be no room for doubt in anybody's mind. It is possible that the Secretary of State may not like the First Minister; the First Minister of Northern Ireland may not see things in the Province in exactly the same way as the Government. Heaven forbid that that might happen. 
 If we leave the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State will be able to discuss matters with other politicians and wholly ignore the person who speaks on behalf of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. That cannot be right. If politicians are to be involved in this process, it must be made clear. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has been the Deputy First Minister: he might like to add himself to the list, or add the current Deputy First Minister. I have no objections to that. 
 If politicians are to be involved in this process, we must make it clear that the principal politician or politicians should be added to the list of people who must be consulted. I hope that the Government will accept this point. It will be helpful if the First Minister accepts it. 
 The present situation is wrong in principle. I am a pragmatist as well as many other things. Indeed, I am helpful and pragmatic this morning. I am prepared to be pragmatic when sitting on a Committee and if I can help to make the Bill less awful, I am prepared to do so.

Seamus Mallon: I note that this is a small, short clause, but that it has merited 13 or 14 amendments. It strains credibility to think how 13 or 14 amendments could be written into such a small clause. The broad point is that the clause is not about the Secretary of State or the Chief Constable; it is about the board and the nature of the consultations with it. In effect, the clause does absolutely what was required. It amends the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of Patten are fully implemented in the role of the Policing Board and that the board is properly respected by the Secretary of State. If there be devolution in future, the relevant person would not be the Secretary of State, he or she would be a Northern Ireland politician. The responsible person is presently the Secretary of State and it is essential that if the tripartite arrangement, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke and with which I agree, is to be maintained, that must be done on the basis of respect. Unfortunately, the 2000 Act did not include Patten's requirements for the sort of consultation that meant something.
 I shall say a few words about the board in terms of the new policing dispensation in the north of Ireland. I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull about the tripartite arrangement. The board will not be in the same position as police authorities in England and 
 Wales for a long time; it will not have the luxuries that those authorities enjoy. As much as we may envy those bodies, it will not be like them. The board will contain various people from different political parties—some will be bona fide politicians, some will be previous paramilitaries and others will be somewhere in between those two positions. The board will also have independent members, and the definition of an independent member of a Policing Board in the north of Ireland is especially difficult to define at any stage. 
 The board has an additional burden because it carries with it the symbolism of a new police service. To put it mildly, it is on a knife-edge every day of the week, every month of the year and, indeed, every year until the problem is resolved once and for all. It is right that both the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State—the clause refers to the Secretary of State, not the Chief Constable—deal with the board in a way that respects its position. Patten was clear that the Policing Board should have 
''clearly defined and robust''
 powers in relation to the Secretary of State.

John Taylor: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him. He knows that I think that he is a brave man. He was present on Second Reading when the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, said with reference to the 2000 Act that it was Patten complete; in the vernacular, he said that it was Patten with knobs on. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about those observations of the 2000 Act?

Seamus Mallon: It would take me some time to tell the hon. Gentleman that, and then it would not be printable. I shall answer the question as gently as I can. Had the right hon. Member for Hartlepool listened when the 2000 Act was going through its parliamentary process, we would not be in Committee today. Had he listened to advice, he would not have made such much of a mess of things. I shall go no further, except to say that we are discussing a political Bill, which is telling us that throughout its clauses. It is not Patten with nobs on. It is not Patten to create the burden that the Policing Board will have to bear in Northern Ireland.
 Patten said that the board must have ''clearly defined and robust'' powers in relation to the Secretary of State. To ensure that, it was decided at Weston Park that the Secretary of State 
''would consult the Board with a view to reaching agreement in setting his long term policing objectives''. 
Given what the hon. Gentleman said, that is remarkable damning action to take. I shall repeat that statement to show how awful and radical it was. It was decided that the Secretary of State 
''would consult the Board with a view to reaching agreement in setting his long term policing objectives''.
 I see nothing bold or dramatic about such action. Surely that would be logical action for any Secretary of State to take with the Policing Board and for it to be included in the 2000 Act. 
 It was said at Weston Park that action would be taken to ensure that the Secretary of State would 
 consult the board with a view to reaching agreement on codes of ethics. Bold? Dramatic? Outlandish?

John Taylor: Given that the hon. Gentleman seems to be broadly in sympathy with me about the tripartite document, why is the Bill departing consciously from symmetry? If it were that the Secretary of State should consult the board with a ''view to reaching agreement'', that the Secretary of State should consult the Chief Constable with a ''view to reaching agreement'', that the Chief Constable should consult the board with a ''view to reaching agreement''—in fact, that every possible permutation was with a ''view to reaching agreement''—we could be relaxed about the Bill. However, why does such a singular bipolar requirement of ''with a view to reaching agreement'' elevate the board above the Chief Constable? Why cannot the requirement refer to ''with a view to reaching agreement'' all round, or be left as it was?

Seamus Mallon: That is a valid point. Had I been a member of the board, there would have been Secretaries of State with whom it would not have been impossible to reach agreement. There have been those with whom it was impossible to reach agreement. Unfortunately, one of those Secretaries of State wrote the legislation that we are now trying to put together again. That, to me, is a fairly clear sign that the role of the board has to be protected in a way that it was not so protected under the 2000 Act.
 Technically, of course, there is a difference between the long-term plan of the Secretary of State and the shorter-term, three-to-five year objectives of the board. Surely, it can only be right—this relates to the code of ethics, too—that the Secretary of State consults the board with a view to reaching agreement. I find it difficult to understand the concerns about the clause. I understand why some of the other clauses would cause difficulties. Perhaps it is just that hon. Members are full of remarkable energy and are trying to expend it on the very first clause. 
 Secretaries of State come and go—sometimes quite frequently. I have no comment to make about that. The same goes for Chief Constables. Policing boards will exist, irrespective of who is Secretary of State or Chief Constable. Those on the Policing Board will also be members of a community in the north of Ireland, warts and all. They, along with members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, will be the constant factor in relation to the full development of this new dispensation in policing. I believe that the clause, as rewritten and filtered through Weston Park, gives a status and respect to the board that the 2000 Act did not.

Patrick Mercer: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and it makes a great deal of sense, except for the fact that the members of the Policing Board will surely come and go, too. Although the board may well be a permanent fixture—we hope and trust that it will be—each member will be subject to the vagaries of appointment in the same way that the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State are. Does the hon. Gentleman's argument not fall down on that point?

Seamus Mallon: Technically, yes, but the reality is that the continuation of the input from people in Northern Ireland who are on the board will be the constant factor. However, there will be changes; if Sinn Fein takes its place, as I expect that it will, Ulster Unionist parties will lose seats gladly given to them by Sinn Fein. Also, there will be changes after the next election, in terms of the d'Hondt system of selection. New independent faces—forgive me if I smile—will be found. What will not change is the fact that, for the first time, a cross-community group in the north of Ireland are tackling the problem of policing, and are not hamstrung by a Secretary of State or a Chief Constable. I support that position; that is what Weston Park is trying to achieve, and that is why I support the changes in the clause.

David Trimble: The clause refers to the relationship between the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Secretary of State. First, it would be appropriate to put on record that the board has been remarkably successful in its operations so far. That did not entirely accord with expectations in some quarters when the board was formed. The way that the board has operated is one of the few events in the past year or so that we can look back on with a degree of pleasure.
 The amendments in the clause, which purports to amend the 2000 Act, try to tweak the relationship between the Policing Board and the Secretary of State. Those amendment are purely semantic and have no serious meaning. Great weight has been attached to the fact that under the clause the Secretary of State shall 
''consult the Board with a view to obtaining its agreement''.
 However, if the Secretary of State were to consult the board with no intention of obtaining agreement and paying no attention to its views, could he be said to consult it properly? I think not. The use of the term ''consult'', as opposed to ''inform'', implies that one will seriously consider the views that the person consulted will express. 
 As for the phrase 
''with a view to obtaining its agreement''—
 whose agreement will that be? The Secretary of State may consult the board with a view to obtaining agreement and if the board contumaciously refuses to agree with him, he can say that he tried to obtain its agreement. The amendments are purely semantic; they are of no practical significance. 
 The relationship between the board and the Secretary of State has not given rise to any such problems in the operation of the board over the course of the past year. I am not on the board, but I am not aware of any difficulty touching on the matters raised. Nor do I think that any such difficulty is likely to arise. 
 The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that the changes suggested by the amendments are ''pure Patten''. Perhaps they are and perhaps they are not. The Patten report itself is not pure agreement. Patten himself did not observe the agreement and did not stick to its terms of reference. In considering constitutional matters, he paid no attention to the agreement. If there were to be a conflict between the 
 Patten report and the agreement, I know which I would prefer. On that point, unfortunately, I depart from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who prefers the Patten report to the agreement. It may be pure Patten, but it is also pure posturing by the SDLP.

Seamus Mallon: It is right to look at the explanatory notes again because, for the first time, I have seen a Government stating unequivocally what the purpose of a Bill is, irrespective of disagreements about the Bill itself. Paragraph 3 of the notes says:
''The purpose of the Bill is to implement more fully the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, set out in its report 'A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland' (also known as the Patten report) which was published in September 1999''.
 That is the Government's stated position. The question that arises is why did the Government not take that stated position in 2000 and why do they take it now?

David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has merely reiterated the point that, in his view—and he says, in the view of the Government—the Bill and the provision are pure Patten. I do not disagree with him. However, the Patten report is not without flaws. When the Government commission a report, it is usual for them to consider it. There are not many areas in which, having commissioned a report, the Government then take the view that they are bound entirely by it and must follow it slavishly through every jot and tittle without exercising any independent thought. That is not a responsible way for any Government to behave. It was entirely reasonable for the Government to look at the Patten report with a view to considering whether it was in agreement with the provisions within it. Any reasonable person would do that, rather than adopt an attitude that the report is to be treated as holy writ. That is not the way I would approach any report.
 This may be pure Patten, but it is also pure posturing. It is an attempt by the SDLP to make it seem as though some significant change will be achieved as part of the deal that it made with the Government for participating in the board. A little bit of political manoeuvring underlies the provision for various political objectives. One knows what they are and one is not entirely out of sympathy with them. However, one occasionally gets a little impatient with the cant that goes with such manoeuvring.

Paul Goodman: I must start by saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton.
 A moment ago, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in reference to new subsection (2) in clause 1(1), said that the change was purely semantic, and I am sure that he is right. Nevertheless, I have one question for the Minister so that her response can be helpful. New subsection (2) says: 
''the Secretary of State shall consult the Board with a view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed objectives or revision.''
 As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is impossible to imagine the Secretary of State consulting the board with any other view. However, I put a case to the 
 Minister. It is surely possible that a minority of members of the board, after being consulted by the Secretary of State about a proposed objective or revision, could argue that the Secretary of State's consultation was not entirely serious and that he had not wanted to obtain the board's agreement to objectives or revisions about which the Government felt strongly. Has the Minister taken legal advice on that? We know that all sorts of curious legal possibilities arise during the passage of legislation, and I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to that.

John Taylor: My hon. Friend is embarking on interesting ground. Is he speculating or envisaging that if a minority of members of the board thought that the Secretary of State had not come to it with the clear intention of obtaining agreement but with lesser intentions, the minority might judicially review the Secretary of State for want of good faith or for want of a view to obtain an agreement?

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend perceives my intention absolutely clearly. I shall go a step further. What would happen if not only a minority of members took that view but, for whatever reason—we cannot always be sure about what will happen in such circumstances—a majority of members of the board believed that the Secretary of State had not properly consulted the board with a
''view to obtaining its agreement to the proposed objectives or revision''?
 Having said that, I suspect that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to suggest that the proposed revision is purely semantic. If the change is semantic, as other Committee members have said, will the Minister explain why the Chief Constable should not also be consulted with a view to obtaining his agreement to the proposed objectives or revision? 
 I understand that the Secretary of State would not want to consult 
''other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate''
 in order to obtain their agreement because that would be excessive. However, it would be reasonable to place the Chief Constable and the board on the same level, as they are under the 2000 Act. I support my hon. Friends' amendments and I hope that the Minister will address my line of inquiry.

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. With your approval, may I ask the Minister to provide the Committee, at a convenient stage for her and the Committee, with the names and provenance of the existing members of the board? It would be informative to know whether the members have a political mandate or whether they are independent.

Joe Benton: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order for the Chair. I have no doubt that the Minister heard his request, but it is a matter for her, not for the Chair.

John Taylor: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Benton.

Jane Kennedy: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. I do not know whether you are making the trip to Cardiff on Sunday, but I
 hope that our team does well and that you will enjoy the trip, if you are able to go.

John Taylor: Who is our team?

Jane Kennedy: We have gone immediately to the heart of the reasons why we are considering the Bill. Clause 1 appears to be relatively short and has been described as semantic. However, we cannot begin a discussion about these important issues without taking account of the wider picture in which our discussions are set.
 The clause addresses the balance of the tripartite policing relationship among the Policing Board, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State, which members of the Committee described. The clause, along with clauses 2 and 17, reflects a small but important change to the relationship. It tilts the balance slightly, but importantly, in favour of the board because it will oblige the Secretary of State, not the Chief Constable, to consult the board with a view to reaching an agreement. The Chief Constable will not be required to approach the matters as a supplicant, as was suggested. 
 The right hon. Member for Upper Bann described the change to the current arrangements as purely semantic. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh rightly referred to the importance of the board's status in relation to the objectives that we all have, to command the support and respect of the whole community in Northern Ireland for the new policing—[Interruption.]

Joe Benton: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister. May I point out to members of the Committee that it is sometimes difficult to hear, which might be due to the acoustics in the Room? If they have to hold conversations while any hon. Member is speaking, will they please do so sotto voce?

Jane Kennedy: I shall try to speak up a little as well, although it is early in the morning.
 The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) asked what would happen if a minority, or even a majority, of members of the board dissented from the view that the Secretary of State had fulfilled his obligations in line with the changes proposed in the clause. The hon. Gentleman was right to assume that any such view, whether held by individuals or the board as a whole, could be challenged by judicial review. Northern Ireland and its courts are no strangers to judicial review. The courts would decide whether the accusation that the Secretary of State had not fulfilled his or her obligation was reasonable. The courts would judge whether a reasonable person could reach the conclusion that the consultation was inadequate. I will come later to some of the other points regarding our objective and our belief about the environment within which the board, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable should work. 
 Both the Government and the board have a role in setting the strategic direction for policing and it is right that they should seek, wherever possible, to ensure that that direction is being framed compatibly. Neither the Secretary of State nor the board should have a veto over each other's work; they must retain responsibility 
 for their own objectives. The Government believe that the arrangements set out in the clause are appropriate. I was pleased to note that those arrangements were endorsed by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its recent report on the Bill. It affirmed that the Government's position in relation to the role and the authority of the board was right. 
 There has been some debate about why we did not get it right in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. We genuinely believe that we did get it right and that we had interpreted Patten, although I know that there were long debates about the Government's interpretation of Patten in that respect. We accept that in implementing the 2000 Act we failed to win the support of the whole of civic society in Northern Ireland for the new beginning to policing. After the further discussions that took place at Weston Park we revised our position and we are considering the matters again today.

John Taylor: The Minister says that her Government thought at the time that the 2000 Act had got it right. May I remind her that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool still thinks that the Act got it right?

Jane Kennedy: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend made his point very clearly on Second Reading and the hon. Gentleman rightly draws that to my attention. However, I would not say that that was my Government, but a Government of which I was a member. We needed to reconsider the position that we had taken, so we made a commitment. The clause gives effect to the specific commitments that we made in the implementation plan.

Seamus Mallon: I do not want to labour the point, but I have to say that there is a difference. Without getting into a discussion about which members of the Government thought it was right or wrong, the reality is that no one thought that the 2000 Act was compliant with Patten. That is why it was essentially wrong. The Government say that the aim of the clause is to implement Patten more fully and it is right that that should be done. However, the awfulness about it is that even on Report, when something could have been salvaged, the Government, through the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, were doing deals outside the Door. That made it impossible for any advance to be made and it rang the death knell for the 2000 Act. Will the Minister give an assurance that from now to the end of this parliamentary stage of the Bill, whatever happens otherwise, the Government will play with a straight bat?

Jane Kennedy: The Government, of which I am a member, always play with a straight bat. I hear the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister clear up a point that has been bedevilling the Committee all morning? The right hon. Member for Hartlepool said in his much-quoted speech on Second Reading:
''The Bill has nothing whatever to do with implementing further recommendations of the Patten report.''—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 681.]
 He was wrong about that, was he not?

Jane Kennedy: Let me put it this way. When I began to carry forward the Weston Park agreement, including the published implementation plan, I did so as part of a review of the new policing arrangements. The Bill is important because it allows us to consider much wider issues than those that were debated at Weston Park. Whether it is more in line with the Patten report than the previous Act needs to be considered in context: we are seeking to establish a police service in Northern Ireland that commands the respect of all members of its society.

David Trimble: I welcome the assurance that in dealing with this legislation and anything that might come forward from it the Government will play with a straight bat. Does the Minister think that the Government were playing with a straight bat on the Bill in another place? At the last moment they brought forward amendments at the behest of the SDLP on which they had not consulted with any other party.

Jane Kennedy: We may come on to those issues later in Committee. I believe that we were playing with a straight bat then, that we are now, and that we will continue to do so. We are all working to achieve the same objectives. The Patten report was clear about the importance of the role of the Policing Board, and the changes to the amendments set out in clause 1 are in line with it. The Northern Ireland Policing Board is not the same as police authorities elsewhere. It works under significantly different pressures.
 The clause allows for a slight adjustment in the balance of power towards the board—albeit, as the hon. Member for Solihull has said, a fine balance. It draws on the distinction that exists within the tripartite relationship. Although the roles of the board and the Secretary of State are not identical, their broad purpose is to set a strategic direction for policing within Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable on the other hand is responsible for the operational management of the police and for implementing the objectives set by the board and the Secretary of State. 
 Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 54, 55 and 5 would maintain the status quo and set at naught the Government's undertaking in the implementation plan. Amendments Nos. 3 and 53 would tilt the balance of power towards the Chief Constable in a way that is inappropriate to his role within the tripartite arrangement. The Government do not intend to foist policing objectives on the Chief Constable with no regard to his wishes or views. That is the purpose of the consultation process and I find it hard to foresee a situation in which there would be a major disagreement. 
 Over the past year the Policing Board has worked with the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State on a number of potentially divisive and sensitive issues, and there has been a large degree of consensus and agreement. There is a distinction between consultation with the Chief Constable, whose responsibilities are operational, and consultation with the board, which 
 shares responsibility with the Secretary of State for setting the strategic direction of policing. It is for this reason that it would be inappropriate to put the Chief Constable on precisely the same footing as the board in relation to the Secretary of State, as these amendments suggest. 
 Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 require the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of the board both in relation to the policing objectives and the text of any code of practice. The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked what would happen if agreement could not be reached? The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State retains responsibility for setting the long-term objectives. If the Secretary of State is unable to reach agreement with the Board, the final decision rests with the Secretary of State—but it is reasonable to expect that he will have tried as far as possible to reach agreement before that point is reached. As the hon. Gentleman said, that may be subject to legal tests. I would hope that that situation would not arise, but it is possible that it would. 
 The Government believe that amendments Nos. 1 and 6 go too far in the opposite direction. They go further than the measures envisaged by Patten and beyond what was set out in the implementation plan. They would fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State to an unhelpful degree and give the board a veto over his objectives. 
 As for consultation with the First Minister, amendments Nos. 4, 7, 9 and 21, in slightly different contexts, all propose a formal statutory role for him in the formulation of policing objectives and plans. It would be inappropriate to put that on a statutory basis while policing remains reserved to Westminster and is therefore the responsibility of the Secretary of State. 
 There is, of course, provision under sections 24 and 27 of the 2000 Act for the Secretary of State to consult 
''such other persons as he thinks appropriate''
 on either his long-term policing objectives or the contents of a code of practice. When they touch on matters that are within the transferred or devolved area, we would naturally expect to consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Similarly, as devolution of policing and justice becomes closer, we anticipate an increasing level of consultation with the devolved Administration that would naturally follow. 
 Finally, when responsibility for policing is devolved, responsibility for setting the long-term objectives would rest with the responsible Minister within the Northern Ireland Executive. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh rightly drew attention to the status and the respect that the board must command in its role, which is different from the way in which the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable have to command respect.

John Taylor: I took my cue from the Minister's mention of ''board''. I was unsuccessful earlier when I made a point of order and was properly corrected by you, Mr. Benton. I shall try again and ask the hon. Lady if she will be good enough, possibly during this afternoon's sitting, to equip the Committee with the names and the provenance of the members of the board and say whether they will be independent or
 elected members of a party. I do not insist that such information is provided this morning.

Jane Kennedy: I have no problem in giving the names. In fact, such information has just been passed to me. I shall make sure that they are presented in an easily accessible form and are in the public domain. I was about to refer to the representative nature of the board membership. It may be of interest to members of the Committee to have such information.
 For the moment, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to specify the First Minister as one of the statutory consultees. The hon. Member for Solihull argued that arrangements in England and Wales have worked well for years. In Northern Ireland, we are dealing with a new set of arrangements. The hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to an early start and I appreciate his helpful and pragmatic approach. However, early starts do not suit me.

John Taylor: Nor me.

Seamus Mallon: I wish to make a point before the Minister finishes her speech. The amendment that refers to the First Minister is meant to apply to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right. I apologise for that oversight.

David Trimble: For which there is no basis in the agreement.

Jane Kennedy: I shall ensure that future references take that point into account.

David Wilshire: I am struggling to find out how my being helpful and pragmatic was linked to early starts; perhaps I become more grumpy as the day goes on. Such action was not meant to be linked with early starts because I, like the Minister, object thoroughly to having to get up at this time in the morning. Perhaps I should be more grumpy when I arrive; then people may not want to come here so early.

Jane Kennedy: I was, somewhat flippantly, drawing my comments to a conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh talked about the pleasant walk across Westminster bridge and the sight of the Palace of Westminster in the early morning sun—[Interruption.]—or rain. I took the pragmatic and helpful approach of the hon. Member for Spelthorne to be the effect of an early start.
 I ask the hon. Members who tabled the amendments not to press them to a Division, as the Government do not believe that they are appropriate, and will resist amendment No. 51 if it is not withdrawn.

John Taylor: My colleagues and I would like to return to the matters now under discussion on Report. I believe that I am right in saying—although I am open to guidance—that if we pressed the amendment to a Division and were unsuccessful, it might prejudice a return to those subjects on Report. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. When I arrived this morning and went through the amendments, looking at some of those in my name, I found that one of the lines mentioned was not what I expected. I noted that I has been working from a version of the Bill as amended on Report in the other place; that was owing to my inefficiency. I then went to the Table, got the other version of the document, and discovered that my first group of amendments did, in fact, relate correctly to that Bill. I have no complaints about that. When I came to amendment No. 8 to clause 2, I expected to be able to open the Bill that I had just picked up and find the reference listed correctly. Unfortunately, when you call amendment No. 8, you will find that the line reference is to the other Bill, Mr. Benton. I have not had the chance to go through all the other amendments, but there is a degree of confusion in the listing and details of the blue Notice Paper. I agree that I caused in the first place, but it seems that some of my mistakes have been sorted and some have not.

Joe Benton: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to his copy of the blue Notice Paper, but we now have to work from the white amendment paper. That is where the error has occurred. There is nothing improper about the references; it is just that he has referred to the wrong copy of the document.

David Wilshire: I am most grateful for that, Mr. Benton. My good humour is wearing off, and my reasonableness is getting less as the day goes by, but I shall try not to get confused again.Clause 2 Board's policing objectives

Clause 2 - Board's policing objectives

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out '''but''' and insert '''or''.'
 Clause 2 will alter section 25(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which says: 
''Objectives under this section may relate to matters to which objectives under section 24 also relate, or to other matters''—
 and this is the bit that the Government seek to delete: 
''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section.''
 I have no doubt that in due course the Minister will tell us why it is necessary to delete that phrase. I do not want to comment on that yet; I would rather hear the Minister's justification for it. I may then wish to comment on the reasons that she gives. For the moment, however, I will leave that question, because it is a matter for a stand part debate. 
 I am concerned about the issue, and I tabled the amendment because, as I said in passing during the debate on clause 1, I have constitutional objections to 
 giving Secretaries of State a free hand. My amendment would remove more words than the Government would wish to see removed; it would remove ''or to other matters'', so that subsection (2) would read: 
''Objectives under this section may relate to matters to which objectives under section 24 also relate''.
 If I could understand that I would probably agree with it. However, I am not sure whether I could get my mind round that; it is either too early or too late in the day. I always wonder about a Bill that says that something may happen and certain things may be done. I have a suspicious mind, and I want to know why, having once said, ''The Government may do this,'' someone can tag on ''or anything else'' as the fancy takes them? That is exactly what the words ''or to other matters'' mean in this context. Why is it necessary to say, ''You may consider this,'' and then add ''or anything else''? That is a strange way to legislate; it owes more to the dictatorial nature of the Government, to which I objected during the debate on the programme motion. 
 What are the other matters? What have the Government got hidden behind the covers of the file? What are they up to that they do not want to list? If they are not ashamed of what the other matters might be, let them include them in the Bill so that we can know what may be considered. I am always nervous when I see that the Secretary of State may include anything else that he feels like including. That is not democratic Government, it does not provide accountability to Parliament and I do not believe that such wording should be included in any legislation.

Jane Kennedy: We have clarified the wording and I am pleased that we have done so, because now we can debate the issue. We will not support the amendment because it would restrict the board's ability to set its policing objectives in line with the matters covered by the Secretary of State's long-term objectives under section 24 of the 2000 Act. As the Secretary of State's objectives are intended to be very high-level, it would seem inappropriate to fetter the board's independence as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
 Under the clause, the board would be obliged to take account of the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. However, the board has not simply kept its own policies and objectives consistent with those of the Secretary of State; it has already established itself as a dedicated and professional organisation with the capacity to operate on a genuinely cross-community basis and in a mature and sensible manner. We believe that in order for the board to provide for full accountability for policing in Northern Ireland, it is right that it should have sufficient latitude to set its own objectives without being constrained by the Secretary of State or by some future devolved Minister of Justice. That would be underpinned by the requirement to consult and seek to achieve agreement. 
 The change proposed in the Bill is important in recognising the board's independence. That goes back to the debate on clause 1 and the status of the board. I was pleased to see that that change was endorsed by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The 
 amendment would limit the board's ability to develop its work, so it is unnecessary.

Seamus Mallon: I welcome the change to the clause. It ensures that the Policing Board must take account of the Secretary of State's long-term policing objectives in framing its own, rather than just incorporate decisions made by the Secretary of State. The essential difference is that Patten recommended strongly that the Secretary of State set long-term objectives and principles and the board set objectives and priorities for policing over a three to five-year period. It is only right that the board should be able to do that without being required to take those objectives and priorities from a set of principles drawn up a Secretary of State, which far outruns the writ for the period that they have to cover.
 At Weston Park, the Government agreed to amend the Act so that the Northern Ireland Policing Board would take account of the Secretary of State's objectives when setting its own. I fully agree with that because it gives the board greater autonomy. I make no apologies for seeking greater autonomy for the board with regard to that matter and many others. Such a provision also secures compliance with Patten, who, as I said, clearly recommended that the board should set its objectives and priorities for policing over a three to five-year period, taking account of any longer-term objectives or principles set by the Secretary of State. 
 I do not anticipate great divergence from objectives or principles as the years proceed, but I can foresee circumstances in which matters that had been addressed in the long term might need adjustment by the board according to its three to five-year term for planning and objectives, requiring a divergence from the long-term objectives or principles set by the Secretary of State. That may never happen, but in the interests of the status, and, indeed, the potency of the board, it should have the power to carry out its Patten remit in the manner stated in the clause, which I welcome.

Paul Goodman: I apologise to the Minister in advance if she has already covered the point that I am about to raise. If she has, I am sure that she will interrupt me and I shall sit down. Section 25(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has alluded, states:
''Objectives under this section may relate to matters to which objectives under section 24 also relate, or to other matters, but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section.''
 As I understand it, the Minister wants to amend the section so as to delete the words from ''but'' to the end. I ask myself the question that perhaps the Minister would address: let us suppose that the members of the board—whose names I look forward to seeing later today—following the proceedings of the Committee, see that they are no longer required to pursue objectives consistent with those under section 24 of the 2000 Act. 
 Is there a possibility that the Secretary of State, who has a duty to consider long-term objectives, and the board, which has a duty to consider objectives, may diverge in the objectives that each seeks to reach? If so, 
 I welcome the Minister's view. It seems possible that by deleting the words from section 25(2) as she seeks to do, she could introduce, perhaps unwittingly, a divergence between the objectives, which could damage the stability of policing in Northern Ireland. 
Jane Kennedy rose—
Mr. Wilshire rose—

Jane Kennedy: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to intervene before I have opened my mouth, or was he trying to catch the Chairman's eye?

David Wilshire: I was conscious that because I moved the amendment, I would bring things to a conclusion if I spoke, so I wanted to let the Minister say what she wanted first.

Joe Benton: That is proper. I call the Minister.

Jane Kennedy: I seek the leave of the Committee to respond to the valid question asked by the hon. Member for Wycombe. He was right to use the terms that he did to describe what we have done. The value of the change that we are proposing is the recognition of the board's independence. We do not expect that that would mean wholesale changes on the ground. Both the Secretary of State and the board will continue to have the interests of policing in Northern Ireland at their hearts, and both will have an interest in determining a sensible direction to achieve that. The Secretary of State's objectives are aimed at the longer term, while the board's objectives are more medium term—over three to five years. In reality, the objectives will continue to be consistent with each other, and if that is the case, so much the better. It is important for that to happen because both the Secretary of State and the board conclude that that arrangement is more appropriate than making one subservient to the other by statute. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Paul Goodman: Is the Minister saying that she would be happy for the objectives of the Secretary of State and the board to diverge somewhat? If so, to what extent?

Jane Kennedy: I would not envisage divergence. However, it is possible to contemplate a situation in which the board considers its short and medium-term role and responsibility and, given its responsibilities for managing budgets and the estate of the Police Service, it might determine objectives that it wishes to discuss with the Secretary of State because they might be perceived to diverge. That is all underpinned by the need to achieve agreement between the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable—the tripartite arrangement—in the interests of good policing in Northern Ireland, which we discussed in our earlier debate.

David Wilshire: I have worked for a long time on the Texas principle of politics: if one tables sufficient amendments or asks sufficient questions, oil will pop out of one of the holes that has been drilled. On this occasion, something has emerged that I had not anticipated when I tabled the amendment: I have heard things that give rise to serious worries. The hon. Member for Newry and South Armagh said that the
 provision is what Patten was all about. I was not very keen on that to start with, and I am even less keen on it if this provision is what will happen.

Seamus Mallon: After all these years of friendship with the hon. Gentleman, I had hoped that he might get the name of my constituency right sometimes.

David Wilshire: I do try, but I get confused because the name keeps changing. The hon. Gentleman and I go back a long way, although I would not want to bore the Committee with some of the things that we get up to on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. I shall do my level best, and I consider myself told off; it will not be the last time that I get told off during the Committee. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
 When the Minister responded to what I said about my amendment after I said that I would be interested to hear why the Government wanted to delete the words, I received a reply about both my amendment and the clause. Would it be appropriate, therefore, to deal with such matters now and not have a stand part debate, or would you prefer the two issues to be debated separately, Mr. Benton?

Joe Benton: It might be as well to restrict ourselves to the amendment for the time being. As things stand, I am not disposed to take same the action as I did on clause 1. This is a matter for the hon. Gentleman, but if at the end of the debate on the amendment I consider that the clause has been fully discussed, we shall forgo a separate discussion on it. We shall see what happens as we approach the clause stand part debate.

David Wilshire: That advice is very helpful, Mr. Benton—but it leaves the choice with me. I will opt to comment only on my amendment, concerning the words ''or to other matters''. My principle of drilling holes to produce something worth debating is designed to find out the Government's intentions in clause 2, and if we can have a separate discussion on that, it will not become confused with my amendment.
 The Minister did not give a clear explanation why the phrase ''or to other matters'' was relevant. The argument was about giving the board more power, but that is not the same issue to which I referred. I was talking about giving the Secretary of State, the board or anyone else the power to do something, and then tagging words to the effect of ''or it can do what it likes''; the other issues that I want to consider can be taken in conjunction with the clause. The hon. Lady heard what I said, but declined to give me a satisfactory explanation. That comes as no surprise, but as I got up early and am in a reasonable mood, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: What concerned me about the Minister's sentiments in the previous debate was that we have now reached the point at which the board will have established itself and could realistically be
 allowed to do more. That raises two questions. The board may be good and developing well, but it is possible that in the future the whole thing could get out of hand, but by then it will be able to do what it wants if clause 2 remains in the Bill.

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. At some stage, the board may not be not as good as the previous board. However, the Secretary of State, too, may not be as good as previous Secretaries of State. Surely there are sufficient checks and balances in the Bill to ensure that in either of those cases, the policing objectives would be protected. The hon. Gentleman should consider that when he talks about a board deteriorating. It is not necessarily the case that all Secretaries of State show great wisdom when they arrive.

David Wilshire: Absolutely not. Otherwise, however, for once I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Under clause 2 the Secretary of State will lay down long-term objectives that must be followed by the board. However, the Government are seeking our agreement that the board need not follow the long-term objectives of the Secretary of State. The clause will remove the words:
''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section.''
 Are we really saying that a United Kingdom Minister will set the overall objectives for policing part of the state, but that those objectives can then be disregarded? If so, why does the Surrey police authority not have the same power to disregard the objectives of the Home Secretary? I do not know why we in the United Kingdom should allow a police authority, or a board—call it what you like—in one part of the kingdom to overrule the Secretary of State of the duly elected Government of this country, when an authority in another part of the kingdom cannot. In a United Kingdom, that would be a dangerous route to go down.

Seamus Mallon: I hoped for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was asking a rhetorical question—but he makes a valid point. In the immortal words of a former leader of his party, we are not the same as Finchley. What is happening to policing in Northern Ireland is not the same as what is happening in England and Wales, for one reason: there has been broad agreement that responsibility for policing and justice will, in effect, be devolved at some point to the new Administration in Northern Ireland. As a result, it is almost inevitable that legislation will be written with one eye on that eventuality. That is why Northern Ireland is different, and why it is necessary to ensure that the board has the status to make decisions that reflect the needs of Northern Ireland, rather than insisting on the technicalities that the hon. Gentleman mentions concerning the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Policing Board.

David Wilshire: It grieves me to have to disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman twice in one debate, but he is wrong. I accept his argument that if there is a devolved arrangement within the United Kingdom, it is perfectly proper to devolve whatever Parliament decides to devolve. However, if there were to be devolution to England—I would love to debate
 that, but I have little doubt that you would stop me very rapidly if I did, Mr. Benton—and there were a debate about devolving justice to an English Parliament, I do not believe that the decisions on the objectives to be considered in England would be devolved to the Surrey police authority. They would be devolved to a Home Secretary or other Justice Minister in the Parliament of England.
 The hon. Gentleman's argument is that because we are dealing with a devolved jurisdiction, the power should be devolved to the Policing Board. I do not think so. If there is to be a devolved arrangement that includes a Justice Minister in Northern Ireland—I would have profound reservations about that, but it is a matter for an entirely separate debate—power should be devolved to the Justice Minister, who would set the objectives in the place of the Secretary of State. In that case, my argument about the wrongness of the clause would still stand, because the clause would allow the board to ignore the objectives of the Justice Minister. The Minister shakes her head. I will willingly give way if she wants to tell me why I am wrong; I am getting used to that this morning.

Jane Kennedy: The clause requires the board to ''take account of'' those objectives, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads through to the end.

David Wilshire: That takes us on to the issue of what ''take account of'' means. I am concerned that we are deleting the words
''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives''.
 Whether we take account of something elsewhere is not the same as being ''consistent with''. The clause says that the objectives of the board, whether it is answerable to a Secretary of State in Whitehall or a Justice Minister in Stormont, will no longer have to be consistent with those of the Government of the country. That strikes me as fundamentally wrong. 
 I listened to what the Minister said earlier, which is why I queried whether she was replying on the subject of the amendment or the clause, and I believe that she has made a confused argument about the objectives. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh raised the correct issue in the previous debate: the clash between objectives and priorities. I hope that the Minister is saying that the board will have more freedom and flexibility to choose between the overriding priorities and principles in order to achieve the overarching long-term objectives of policing in Northern Ireland, because the members of the board are local people with the greatest knowledge, and they will know what to prioritise. 
 If that is the argument, I agree with it. It is right that a Government in the centre should set the objectives. The hon. Gentleman and I will never agree on the future of the United Kingdom.

Seamus Mallon: We may agree about the future of Ireland, though.

David Wilshire: That is a matter that we have discussed at great length on many occasions and it is
 not appropriate for Committee. We will see whether we can strike an agreement on Northern Ireland versus the Republic at lunchtime.
 The United Kingdom is a sovereign state, and as such its overall policing objectives should be a unitary matter: they need to be set whether they be for Surrey, for parts of Scotland, for Wales or for Northern Ireland. I am opposed to the notion that there is a police board authority in part of the United Kingdom that is entitled to disregard the long-term objectives of the Government of the day. That is fundamentally wrong. 
 It undermines the nature of a sovereign state to have different ways of policing in different parts of the country. There may be different priorities, different techniques and different responses to different circumstances, but not an ability to disregard the long-term objectives of the Government of the day. That is wrong. 
 Is that what the Government are trying to achieve? The Minister has shaken her head, and I hope to show that that is not the approach. Are the Government saying that, now that the board has established itself and shown itself to be doing a good job of work, acting responsibly in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, we must give it more flexibility, in the same way that the Surrey police authority has the flexibility to say that the situation in Surrey is not the same as in Manchester, and therefore their priorities will be different. If that is the case, the Government have my support. However, that is not what the clause provides. 
 If the clause were to say that in future the Policing Board will be freer to select and prioritise the matters on which it will focus, I would be happy to support it. I am not happy to support a clause that says that a police board in part of the United Kingdom can disregard the long-term objectives of the Government.

David Trimble: The difficulty is that the original section 25 of the 2000 Act had amendments made to it that changed things slightly. There is a considerable underlying problem in working out the exact relationship between the Secretary of State and his successor in the event of devolution and the Policing Board.
 There are problems in treating the Patten report as holy writ. If we read the report, we get little guidance on this matter. It might be helpful to hon. Members to reconsider what the report said. Paragraph 6.4 reads: 
''We believe that the complicated provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 as to the respective roles of the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Chief Constable in setting objectives, performance targets and policy plans, can and should be greatly simplified. In essence we believe that the Secretary of State (or successor after responsibility for policing is devolved) should be able to set long-term governmental objectives or principles; the Policing Board should set medium-term objectives and priorities; and the police should develop the short-term tactical plans for delivering those objectives.''
 Paragraph 6.5 says: 
''Accordingly we recommend that the Policing Board should set objectives and priorities for policing over a 3 to 5 year period, taking account of any longer term objectives or principles set by the Secretary of State or successor. It should then be responsible for adopting a 3 to 5 year strategy, prepared by the Chief Constable 
through a process of discussion with the Board, which should reflect the objectives and priorities set by the Board.''
 That recommendation begins with the word ''accordingly''. It purports to encapsulate paragraph 6.4, which contains a series of bold propositions—for example, that the Secretary of State should ''set long-term objectives'' and that 
''the Policing Board should set medium-term objectives''.
 The problem arises about what should be the precise relationship between long and medium-term objectives. Paragraph 6.4 implies nothing; it says that the Secretary of State should set the long-term objectives. If one is to follow Patten's holy writ, we must ensure that the legislation is framed in such a way that the Secretary of State or his successor should set the long-term objectives. Those should not be set by anyone else, nor should they be subverted by anyone else. 
 We come to crux of the problem. How is one to be consistent with Patten in protecting the role of the Secretary of State and his successors with regard to long-term objectives while still allowing the Policing Board the power to set the medium-term objectives? In paragraph 6.5 the words ''taking account'' are used, but if those words are to be applied properly in the light of what is said at paragraph 6.4, medium-term plans should incorporate and be consistent with the proposals that it contains. That may happen in practice under the revised wording and, if it does, it would be consistent with the letter, and perhaps the spirit, of Patten.

John Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is drawing conclusions from Patten and arguing immaculately, as far as I can tell. However, would he not accept that Patten was written, informed—even inspired—as a projection of what policing in Northern Ireland might look like on the far side of a completed peace process? Would he agree with me that we are not there?

David Trimble: I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, although I am not sure that his comments bear much on the argument about which he was so complimentary. I am not sure that I can recover the thread that I had before the intervention—that is one of the perils of this sort of debate.
 Patten is clear that long-term objectives are a matter for the Secretary of State, or his successor in the event of devolution. To be consistent with Patten one must ensure that the Secretary of State or his successor sets long-term objectives, that those are observed and that they are not subverted by short or medium-term measures adopted either by the Chief Constable or the Policing Board. The question is, ''What is the best formula?'' It is true that paragraph 6.5 uses the words ''take account'', but those must be read in the light of paragraph 6.4. In the light of paragraph 6.4, the terminology that is used in the 2000 Act can be fairly described as an honest, honourable attempt to give effect to all of the provisions in Patten. 
 The amendment would open up precisely the danger that has been adverted by those on the Opposition Benches. The original legislation used the 
 words ''be consistent with'', and if it is amended, those who subsequently interpret the legislation will say that by deliberately striking out ''consistent'' and producing a lower standard, Parliament intended to create a situation in which there was no need to be consistent with long-term objectives. Consequently, although the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his party might have thought that the amendment was designed to be more consistent with Patten, it will not achieve that. The original terminology was closer to Patten than the terminology that we will have. There is a world of difference between simply following something formally and thinking a matter through.

Ross Cranston: Is the answer not that argued by the right hon. Gentleman about the first group of amendments? He said that ''consult'' meant genuine, bona fide consultation. He then said that inserting the words
''consult with a view to obtaining its agreement''
 was only a semantic difference. The same applies to ''take account'', which means to take account in a genuine, bona fide way. That is not exactly equivalent to taking account so that one is absolutely consistent, but the phrase has a great deal of substance.

David Trimble: I take the serious point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If we had used the term ''take account'' from the outset, there would be a strong argument in the terms that he used. My worry is that removing ''consistent'' from legislation and inserting other terminology is likely to be interpreted by future members of the Policing Board, and even the courts, as indicative of Parliament's deliberate intention to move away from the element of consistency. That opens up rather dangerous territory. The argument shows that although some distinctions may be semantic, there might be consequences—perhaps unintentional consequences—of the semantic games that people are playing. That is why several of the Bill's provisions are ill advised because they will get us into the danger to which I referred.

Seamus Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman is quite knowledgeable about the semantics of all this, but will he contribute to the knowledge of the rest of us and tell us what he, as a lawyer, sees as the substantive difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to''? I do not want to prolong the debate on semantics but as he is seeing everything through semantic-tinted glasses, I would have thought that he would oblige us with definitions.

David Trimble: I am not quite sure when ''having regard to'' entered our discussions. We are on a spectrum or continuum with regard to the weight attached to these matters, which is what my point relates to. We must examine the issue against the background of the clear statement in paragraph 6.4 of the Patten report, which is that
''the Secretary of State . . . should be able to set long-term governmental objectives or principles''.
 In order to be consistent with Patten, the legislation must be framed so that the Secretary of State—no one 
 else—sets long-term objectives, and other people must operate in the context of those objectives.

Seamus Mallon: I do not want to be a pest, but it would be a great help to many members of the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would address the substantive legislative or legal difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to'' in terms of semantics.

David Trimble: The distinction that I am drawing is framed as to be consistent with the objective in the phrases that are being deleted from section 25 of the 2000 Act. I am worried because the terms will disappear under the Bill, and that disappearance could undermine paragraph 6.4. That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on it for a moment.

Paul Goodman: When I asked the Minister about the implication of the removal of the words
''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section'',
 to which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann referred, I received an interesting answer. However, I am worried about it because the hon. Lady said that there was a clear difference between long-term and medium-term objectives in policing. She suspected that there would not be a divergence of the sort that I described, but I am not entirely sure whether her answer cleared up the worries raised by the right hon. Gentleman. 
 Inevitably in such matters, there will be real debate about long-term objectives and what the 2000 Act calls objectives, but which are medium-term objectives. One person's view of a long-term objective can be different from the view of another person. The view of the Secretary of State may not be the same as that of all members of the board or some members of it. I am worried about the deletion of the words 
''but in any event shall be so framed as to be consistent with the objectives under that section'',
 because their removal will introduce a new element of uncertainty. 
 I do not for a moment want to go back over previous debates, because you would rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Benton, but the theme that emerged in relation to the previous clause is that elements of uncertainty are being introduced. I do not want to risk the ire of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench by suggesting that I want to force the matter to a Division, but genuine elements of uncertainty are being introduced that the Minister has not fully addressed.

Jane Kennedy: This has been a useful discussion about the intention of clause 2. We must consider the changes within the overall context of the responsibilities that weigh upon the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable—the tripartite relationship that we have discussed. The board's responsibilities are that it should secure the maintenance of the police in Northern Ireland and ensure that they are efficient and effective.
 The 2000 Act describes the responsibilities of the police. This is one of those occasions when the Minister's reply to such a thoughtful and probing debate becomes important. As I said earlier, it is our expectation that, in reality, the objectives that are worked through by the Policing Board will continue to be consistent with the objectives developed by the Secretary of State or a justice Minister. There is such an imperative on each of the three partners within the tripartite relationship to ensure that police in Northern Ireland are efficient, effective and carry through their responsibilities. 
 The hon. Member for Wycombe overstated what I said. I did not say that there was a clear difference, although there are differences between the responsibilities and development of long-term, as opposed to medium-term, policies and objectives. However, it is important that the board's development of policies and practices, within the overall framework of those responsibilities, is consistent with those of a justice Minister or a Secretary of State because both agree that that should be the case, rather than because the statute requires it to be so. 
 The right hon. Member for Upper Bann made a strong argument about the interpretation of the Patten report. It remains a fact that the board would be required to take account of the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North rightly said, that is a significant responsibility bearing down on the board in the development of its objectives. On that basis, we believe that the change that we are making is appropriate. It properly enhances the status of the board and allows it to operate with greater flexibility, but within the constraints appropriate to the circumstances that we envisage in Northern Ireland.

Seamus Mallon: I shall try again for the last time. Will the Minister help some of us out by giving her understanding of the difference between ''taking account of'' and ''having regard to''?

Jane Kennedy: We have often discussed ''taking account of'' and the nuances of that and other phrases when debating legislation. There is a significant and important difference between taking account of and being consistent with. The latter implies a requirement for the objectives that we are discussing to be much more closely in line with, and constrained by, the Secretary of State's long-term objectives. One would read into ''take account of'' that the board, in developing its objectives, must not only consult on but have in mind the Secretary of State's long-term policing objectives.

Seamus Mallon: That is kind of the Minister, but it is the distinction between taking account of and having regard to that I am interested in, not taking account of and being consistent with.

Jane Kennedy: I am obviously making heavy work of this. It is true that, in law, there is no distinction between the two phrases. However, it is important for the interpretation of the evolving development of policing in Northern Ireland that we take account of—I did not mean to use that phrase—how we hope that
 the accountability and management of policing will develop. The changes that we propose do not go so far as to justify the concerns expressed by Committee members, and reflect the changing responsibility that we seek to place on the board in enhancing its position and role in Northern Ireland.

John Taylor: May I endeavour to help the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh? ''Consistent with'' is a heavier discipline than ''taking account of''. I could take something into account and partially disregard it.
 Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 - Chief Constable's functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: The Chief Constable is asked, under the clause, to have regard to the policing plan in discharging his functions. It seems that the primary author of the policing plan is the board. In subsection (3), the Chief Constable is asked to have regard to any code of practice under section 27.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.